Closeup without macro lens: reversed lens method

[snowbear]

This was posted in another thread a few years ago, so I'm putting it in a dedicated post.
There are a few ways to get really close photos without an actual macro lens. This is just one: coupling two lenses of different focal lengths together, front-to-front.

Put the larger focal length lens on the camera and couple the smaller focal-length lens to it, front-to-front. There are double-threaded rings that are made for this, but I just used gaffing tape. I like it becasue it's flexible, fairly strong, but doesn't leave a sticky residue like duct tape.

Here, I am using a 50mm on the camera and a mounting a 24mm to that.

The two lenses used - 50mm and 24mm primes.


Using gaffing (or gaffer's) tape to couple the lenses. Just wind the tape arounf the lenses a couple of times. If you have enough coordination, you can try just holding them together.


The rig mounted on the camea; in this case, my old D40.


The subject (normal photo)


The closeup with the rig.

 

[RAZKY]

This was posted in another thread a few years ago, so I'm putting it in a dedicated post.
There are a few ways to get really close photos without an actual macro lens. This is just one: coupling two lenses of different focal lengths together, front-to-front.

Put the larger focal length lens on the camera and couple the smaller focal-length lens to it, front-to-front. There are double-threaded rings that are made for this, but I just used gaffing tape. I like it becasue it's flexible, fairly strong, but doesn't leave a sticky residue like duct tape.

Here, I am using a 50mm on the camera and a mounting a 24mm to that, giving me about 1:2 magnification. Set the aperture of the reversed lens (the 24mm in this case) to wide open, then contol aperture of the shot with the main lens (50mm).

The two lenses used - 50mm and 24mm primes.


Using gaffing (or gaffer's) tape to couple the lenses. Just wind the tape arounf the lenses a couple of times. If you have enough coordination, you can try just holding them together.


The rig mounted on the camea; in this case, my old D40.


The subject (normal photo)


The closeup with the rig.

(Mostly) good stuff, but you may want to double check your magnification, and which lens to adjust the aperture on.
Pretty good explanation here:

Coupling lenses for extreme macro

Stacking or coupling lenses can give you great macro shots for very little cost. Find out more here

extreme-macro.co.uk

 

[Sharpshooterr]

Razky, that's an interesting way to get big magnification(4:1).
I wonder how that compares to using cheap, plastic non-contacted extension tubes?
Just how many tubes can be stacked, anyway?
SS

 

[RAZKY]

Razky, that's an interesting way to get big magnification(4:1).
I wonder how that compares to using cheap, plastic non-contacted extension tubes?
Just how many tubes can be stacked, anyway?
SS

Not sure, SS - my lenses are not light weight, and I wouldn't put many plastic tubes together for fear of them flexing.

 

[RacePhoto]

Although I do like the gaffers tape version! Widest lens reversed makes for the greatest macro magnification.

The inexpensive extension tubes are not going to flex, and for the price, remember they are 100% manual. For automatic things are much more expensive. I have two sets. Not because I use them that way, but probably because I misplaced them or just bought extra "in case"?

 

[petrochemist]

I have used stacked lenses for macro for many years, but prefer to describe this technique as 'coupled lens', or 'stacked lens' since reversing a lens directly on the camera body can also be effective for macro & I think reversed lens better describes that approach. This stacking method is basically using a camera lens as a highly corrected diopter (close up filter).

I typically use coupling rings for linking my lenses in this stacked arrangement. This is more secure & easier to do than gaffer tape, but the tape approach is certainly good for testing out lens combinations it you don't have suitable coupling rings (yet).
Usually I stack a reversed 50mm prime on a telephoto zoom to give good range of magnifications without vignetting:
10p macro by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

I've even tried it using a telescope eyepiece instead of the reversed lens. It worked somewhat with a 40mm eyepiece:
Knot macro by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

My 4mm eyepiece had too little working distance, & vignetted terribly - leaving the household light I chose as a subject looking more like a distant planet!

You not mentioned it but with both lenses set to infinity focus the magnification achieved should be the focal length the normally mounted lens divided by that of the reversed lens. A 24mm stacked on a 50mm should give around 2x, 50mm on a 100mm also 2x, 50mm on 200mm gives 3x etc.

FWI/W practically all macro tricks can be combined, I often stack a lens in front of my macro lens to give it a bit more magnification, and bellows or extension tubes can also be combined with this. I did find both flare & DOF significant issues when I tried pushing this to 6x.

 

[wobe]

This was posted in another thread a few years ago, so I'm putting it in a dedicated post.
There are a few ways to get really close photos without an actual macro lens. This is just one: coupling two lenses of different focal lengths together, front-to-front.

Put the larger focal length lens on the camera and couple the smaller focal-length lens to it, front-to-front. There are double-threaded rings that are made for this, but I just used gaffing tape. I like it becasue it's flexible, fairly strong, but doesn't leave a sticky residue like duct tape.

Here, I am using a 50mm on the camera and a mounting a 24mm to that.

The two lenses used - 50mm and 24mm primes.


Using gaffing (or gaffer's) tape to couple the lenses. Just wind the tape arounf the lenses a couple of times. If you have enough coordination, you can try just holding them together.


The rig mounted on the camea; in this case, my old D40.


The subject (normal photo)


The closeup with the rig.

Very interesting post, I had not heard of this, thank you (and the follow up info from others).

Will certainly be trying this out

 

[RAZKY]

The inexpensive extension tubes are not going to flex, and for the price, remember they are 100% manual. For automatic things are much more expensive. I have two sets. Not because I use them that way, but probably because I misplaced them or just bought extra "in case"?


View attachment 256931

I have several sets of metal tubes such as you picture (Zeikos, Dot Line, FotodioX, Vivitar ...) often stack four or five sets and they don't flex. I wouldn't put my 55 f/1.4 Zeiss on even one set of plastic tubes, though.

 

[RAZKY]

It's probably obvious to everyone, but the front lens can be of any mount. Usually an aperture ring is preferred, but there have been third party attachments made to actuate the diaphragms of some lenses that lack a ring. A short extension tube can protect the exposed rear element of the reversed lens, and serve as a hood as well.
My favorite lens for plain reversing or coupling is a 25 f/1.4 Switar from an old Eumig movie camera $2.00 US at a thrift shop. Dedicated macro lenses are more convenient, particularly in the field and for moving subjects, but you don't need to spend much to achieve equal quality!

 

[RacePhoto]

Interesting ideas and yes, an older lens with aperture ring, Thinking about this, I don't know what difference using the back lens or the front lens for that selection?

Still something I had never heard of before and yet another DIY creation that could be useful for someone. Without too much trouble, a step up or step down ring, from the mounted lens to the reversed lens and BINGO, off and shooting.

It's probably obvious to everyone, but the front lens can be of any mount. Usually an aperture ring is preferred, but there have been third party attachments made to actuate the diaphragms of some lenses that lack a ring. A short extension tube can protect the exposed rear element of the reversed lens, and serve as a hood as well.
My favorite lens for plain reversing or coupling is a 25 f/1.4 Switar from an old Eumig movie camera $2.00 US at a thrift shop. Dedicated macro lenses are more convenient, particularly in the field and for moving subjects, but you don't need to spend much to achieve equal quality!

Yes, I'd think that some dandy older lenses with good quality, inexpensive, can be found for this and adapted.

Myself I have worked with my old FD lens to make the reverse, but now I have to keep my eyes open at the sales and auctions for a high quality older wide angle.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

Not sure, SS - my lenses are not light weight, and I wouldn't put many plastic tubes together for fear of them flexing.

RAZKY, they also make, and almost as cheaply, alloy tubes but the plastic is pretty darn strong. BUT, I’m surprised you would trust your lenses to plastic tubes yet you have no trouble trusting them to duct tape or something similar.
Even if the tape is ok I’d much rather use the precision that would be provided by something rigid and much more stabilizing than any kind of flexible tape. At least for me!
SS

 

[RAZKY]

Thinking about this, I don't know what difference using the back lens or the front lens for that selection?

It's explained in the first link I posted - see "Stopping Down."

RAZKY, they also make, and almost as cheaply, alloy tubes but the plastic is pretty darn strong. BUT, I’m surprised you would trust your lenses to plastic tubes yet you have no trouble trusting them to duct tape or something similar.
Even if the tape is ok I’d much rather use the precision that would be provided by something rigid and much more stabilizing than any kind of flexible tape. At least for me!
SS

You must be reading what someone else wrote - I only use aluminum or brass extension tubes, and alloy macro couplers - NEVER tape of any kind when coupling lenses.

 

[Rickbb]

My first macro was just hand holding a 50mm 1.4 backwards up to the body. Worked so well I bought a reversing ring. All I used for years. With the 50 it put the image on film at 1/2 life size.